So I've recently seen presented (again, I'm fairly sure it's not new) the idea of using hit-points, or some hit-point-esque mechanism to represent emotional resolve.  The numbers measure not merely when you die (though if you run out then you presumably do die) but when your character runs out of the will to keep fighting.

It struck me, immediately, that many people would never, ever want such a system.  Me, I could take it or leave it ... it seems like a good model for, say, a Raiders of the Lost Ark type of game where the hero still takes damage like a normal guy, but can keep going far beyond the normal limits of human endurance.  But I expect that some people would object in the strongest terms to being told "Your guy has had it ... he doesn't have the will to keep fighting."  They'd rather just die and be done with it.  That's cool too!

It just got me thinking:  In many systems we've got this resource (STUN, hit-points, power-points, whatever) that tells you how long your guy can keep duking it out.  What are the kind of things that it can be measuring?  Obviously, it could be physical resources, and it could be resolve ... are there other things it could reasonably be?

Could you do a Survivor-type game where your hit-points represented your reputation and standing in your social group?  A game where hitting zero HPs meant you were voted off the island?

What else could be done?

The best rationalisation I've heard of hit points is as a pacing mechanic. As such they represent many different things-- the ability to parry or dodge a blow that would otherwise cripple, sheer physical grit, spiritual energy one has drawn from the world (via experience), divine protection, the minor magics that shield a wizard from harm, and of course emotional resolve.

I think the trick to visualising hp's is that they can be all of the above, and often change meaning from hit to hit. It makes a lot more sense than trying to pigeonhole them as one particular thing only to run headlong into a rule that contradicts the assumption.

I think they should be used to measure girth, it's more important than length.

Just have them be less abstract, rather than more abstract, if you want to be more comfortable with them.  That is, have HP be a real resource stat rather than implied one.  You'd need some kind of simplistic wound system on top of this, but you could allow characters to literally spend--let's call it Endurance--to to ignore one of these types of wounds.  Having done so, they can narrate how they avoided getting hurt.  With a system like this, Hitpoints  can represent all of the things people really seem to want them to represent, but there is no disconnect between the mechanic and what happens in play.

The wound "track" could be almost binary: Fine/Hurt/Incap, let's say; spend x hitpoints and narrate (or have the gm narrate) to ignore a wound level, otherwise you take it.  Another benefit of this kind of thing is that you can frontload it by allowing characters to "give it their all" by spending endurance before a contested action, do a "take 20" kind of thing, etc.

Two things:

1) Hit points should measure how manycombat "hits" you can take/absorb before you either die or go unconscious.

2) Shouldn't this be in the design or theory section?


- Ed C.

When i first started d&d as a lad of 11, when i saw the term 'hit points' and not coming from a war gaming background, i actually thought that this meant how many points on someone that you could hit. Thinking about it since then, it could be a replacement for armour class. The higher your hit points, the worse you are at defending yourself and the more 'points to hit' your opponent has.

How much injury you can take before becoming incapacitated and eventually dying.

DnD's failure to do that has always been one of my key issues with the system, for all that I fully recognise it is a feature not a bug.

Emotional resolve?  So magicians who bend reality to their will are kind of irresolute yeah?

It's like some guys back on the Forge some years ago decided they reflected how important to the narrative you were, which seemed to suggest fighters were really important to the narrative and wizards not so much.

In DnD it's best not to think about them too much, that way lies unhappiness, in other games they should simply be a measure of physical injury.

Quote from: BalbinusEmotional resolve?  So magicians who bend reality to their will are kind of irresolute yeah?

Well ... if everyone wanted to play in that R.E. Howard sort of "Warriors are masters of Hyperborean WILL" style, I could totally see it.  That'd be sorta cool.

It's sure not an interpretation I'd put on a known system without clearing it with my peeps, but for either a new system or a group-supported house-rule on an old one ... yeah, I think that could totally work.

And then, like, "Backstab" is just "Damn, when you take a knife in the back it REALLY demoralizes you" and "Cure Light Wounds" is "GOD SAYS IT'S JUST A FLESH WOUND!  SUCK IT UP!" and stuff like that.

It could be cool, in a very different way from how the biomechanical interpretation is cool.  I think they could well be two different flavors of entertaining.

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... if everyone wanted to play in that R.E. Howard sort of "Warriors are masters of Hyperborean WILL" style, I could totally see it.  That'd be sorta cool.

It's sure not an interpretation I'd put on a known system without clearing it with my peeps, but for either a new system or a group-supported house-rule on an old one ... yeah, I think that could totally work.

And then, like, "Backstab" is just "Damn, when you take a knife in the back it REALLY demoralizes you" and "Cure Light Wounds" is "GOD SAYS IT'S JUST A FLESH WOUND!  SUCK IT UP!" and stuff like that.

It could be cool, in a very different way from how the biomechanical interpretation is cool.  I think they could well be two different flavors of entertaining.

I can see it could be cool, but I'd want that as part of a system that put personal character generally more in the forefront, not as a bolted on interpretation.

Put another way, I think it's a good idea, but it's a good idea that needs for me implementation in its own right and not as an add on.  As a new system I'm there dice in hand, for an old system I'm still there dice in hand because I'm basically easy but I'm slightly grumbling under my breath in a passive-aggressive British sort of way, you know?

YMMV and all that.

Quote from: BalbinusI can see it could be cool, but I'd want that as part of a system that put personal character generally more in the forefront, not as a bolted on interpretation.

That's a very interesting, and well-explained distinction.  Thanks!

I always thought it would be neat to have a system where 'damage' was taken to your attributes, like Traveller. A system where you could have 'social' combat where it isn't a trade of blows and tactics but of words and phrases and damage would happen to your int and char and maybe con (or will? stamina? fatigue?). Suffering from penalties would be built in as your stats dropped and recovery from a public tongue lashing would be built in, just like normal damage to your purely physical stats.

Would be nice for when getting beaten in a combat is an embarrassing as well as painful affair.

That way your hit points would directly reflect your abilities, they would be the same.

Hit Points = How much fight ya got in ya, despite, you know, whatever.

That's all they mean to me, and that's a lot.

Emotional hit points are an interesting idea, but unless I was playing the Bronte Sisters RPG, I wouldn't enjoy a game where I could die of ennui.

I like very abstract hit points, like T&T, where you whittle down your Con till you're dead, or very detailed injury systems that pretty much sidestep hit points, like Millenium's End. I'm hard to figure out. Don't try to "get" me, baby.

Hit points mean the number of goddamn points you have before you die.

That's what they've always "meant", that's all they need to "mean".

RPGPundit

It´s why they call them "Hitpoints".
Fitting, ain´t it?